Comments on: Affluence and Accidents and Ad Hominems

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:39:06 +0000

“I am not certain that I would laud anything that comes from the pen or mouth of Brimelow.”

Ad hominem. He may indeed make many inaccurate and objectionable statements (i really have no idea), but each stands alone. To put it another way, the author of the statement has no bearing on it’s accuracy.

See the recent Duke non-rape scandal for multiple perfect examples of “racist” being used by liberals to mean anyone opposed to them (especially when the liberals in question are the ones actually being racist!).

By: Reed

Reed — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:27:00 +0000

In his book “Alien Nation”, Brimelow (1) compares an INS waiting room to the New York subways (“you find yourself in an underworld that is not just teeming but also almost entirely colored”), (2) refers to foreigners (in Brimelowease only non-whites qualify as foreigners) as “weird aliens with dubious habits” and (3), on numerous occassions, expresses concern that his blond-haired, blue-eyed son would grow up in an Amercia where whites were no longer the majority.

I am not certain that I would laud anything that comes from the pen or mouth of Brimelow.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:17:41 +0000

DW,

Wow – I LOVE that definition! It fits at last as often as the real one, probably more!

By: David Wilson

David Wilson — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:36:22 +0000

Mencimer’s racialization reminds me of Peter Brimelow’s definition of a “racist”:

Someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:06:28 +0000

I partly resemble Mencimer’s comments (White, yes. Ivy, yes. Private school, no. American cars, yes, until my most recent one. Flipping burgers, yes, in college.)

But isn’t she implicitly — though definitely not explicitly — conceding the point many of us make: that many of the injuries which lead to suits are the fault of the “victim’s” stupidity?

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:10:10 +0000

OK — I admit it. I’m overprivileged, white, and male!

But hey, I went to public middle school and high school in small town North Carolina; and my later Ivy League schooling notwithstanding, I went to my state’s public university for my undergraduate education. I’ve owned 3 cars in my life, 2 Fords and a Mercury.

I also enjoy tobacco (cigars), alcohol (of all types), fast food (especially that cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils), and even guns (I spent many an Ivy League day captaining the Yale Skeet and Trap team). So I guess I should be self-satisfied in my selflessness, because under the theories Mencimer likes to defend, I sure need my plaintiffs’ bar!

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:33:35 +0000

OK, that second paragraph just hurts to read. What a tool she is. (And I mean that with the utmost disrespect.)

Nectarines technically are peaches, but generally, a “peach” has fuzz, which a nectarine doesn’t.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:36:10 +0000

So what exactly IS the difference between a nectarine and a peach? This 40-something Ph.D. scientist and foodie isn’t exactly sure…

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:01:17 +0000

Well stated.

(nice Jerry McGuire moment/paragraph, too.)

By: TC

TC — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:11:36 +0000

GAWD what a vile attitude she has!

tort reform is easy, REMOVE the money from the attorneys and you will see tort reform!

We will also seem most items being settled long before a courthouse can even hit the radar!